IMPORTANT POINT
Prematurity of a writ petition in challenging the recovery of excess pay due to wrong fixation, and the significance of the presence of an undertaking by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. N. Synkon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2.

2. The writ petitioner who is serving as Senior Microscopist in the office of the District Malaria Officer, Government of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills, Shillong is aggrieved with the letter dated 11.01.2021, wherein it is indicated that the Basic Pay of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed for the period w.e.f. 7.10.2010 to 31.12.2020. The said letter further directed for corrections of the petitioner's Basic Pay at Rs. 43100/- per month with effect from January, 2021 instead of Rs. 44,400/-per month.

3. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that with the issuance of the letter, it is imminent that the respondents will seek recovery of the amount which has been received due to the wrong fixation of pay. The learned counsel has also placed the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC, to buttress his submissions that such recovery on a wrong fixation of pay is impermissible in law. He therefore, prays that directions be issued to restraint the respondents from recovering the excess amount so paid.

4. Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2, at the outset submits that the writ petition is premature as the letter impugned is an internal communication, which copy of the same has only been marked to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents have not embarked upon any exercise to recover the excess pay drawn to warrant that the writ petitioner approach this Court at this stage. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner has suppressed the materials which are crucial to the case, inasmuch as, an undertaking has been given by the writ petitioner himself, to make good any excess amount that has been drawn. It is further submitted that the judgment as cited by the writ petitioner will not be applicable in the instant case, as there is no pleading that hardship will be caused to the writ petitioner in the event of the recovery of pay, and further, it is not that the writ petitioner is on the verge of retirement. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following judgments :-

i) Ulagappa and Others v. Divisional commissioner, Mysore and Others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 639

ii) K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481

iii) Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 223

iv) Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417

v) State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

5. In conclusion the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition deserves no consideration at this stage, and that the same be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the materials on record. As submitted, it appears that the fixation of pay in respect of the writ petitioner had been sought to be corrected by the impugned letter. It is also the submitted that as on date there has been no whisper of any action initiated, for recovery of the excess amount drawn. The fact that the undertaking is also present which has been produced by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents by way of an affidavit cannot be overlooked.

7. Be that as it may, the facts as it pertains today reflects that the writ petition is premature, inasmuch as, no action for recovery has been initiated as yet by the respondents.

8. In view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration and the writ petition being premature is accordingly dismissed.